Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by TwelveFifty
the headline sounds worrying ofc, but the article sheds a little more light..
The measure follows a pair of high-profile subway-shove fatalities from December allegedly involving mentally ill individuals.The city has already drawn up a list of 25 targets, sources said.
“After the Queens subway attack [of immigrant Sunando Sen], the [city] decided to take a proactive approach to track down the most dangerous mental-health patients that currently have mental-hygiene warrants” out for them, a law-enforcement source said.
Those warrants mean that the patients are not wanted for a crime but instead are being sought because they are not getting their court-ordered treatment.
if a court deems someone enough of a risk to order specific treatment (i assume that a medical professional's advice would be part of the case), then is it not responsible to see this through?
only 25 cases are mentioned so far, and a "handful of cops" are assigned to it - this seems reasonable enough at this level, the danger is though that this is the thin end of a poorly assessed and agenda driven wedge.
the other danger is that dangerously ill people that require treatment and support to operate effectively and safely within the community dont get what they genuinely need - but who assesses this?
edit on 19-2-2013 by skalla because: clarity
This whole story is terrible for many reasons.
1) it confuses correlation/causation between subway murders and people not taking their meds
(is there any evidence to confirm this idea even slightly......)
2) it assumes that taking meds reduces the risk of someone wishing to murder another
(however it is actually the taking of meds or being on them in the first place that has more 'correlation' with both suicide and homocide)
3) it assumes that the dopamine hypothesis is proven which it is not
(see work by Duncan double, Peter breggin or Richard bentall re this)
4) tracking people by gps when they haven't committed a crime, or are not considered 'I'll enough' to be in hospital is a fundamental infringement on a persons rights
5) the idea of risk does not stand up in court, the authors of one of the most utilised risk assessments for mentally I'll and violence (hcr20) recognises this. The idea of risk to predict behaviour is mere guesswork.
If someone has committed a crime or there is evidence that proves they were likely too, arrest them and put them and put them before a court, but don't harass/follow people with mental illnesses that are deemed well enough to be in the community as its discrimination and ignorent.
edit on 21-2-2013 by Loopdaloop because: Typo